Fearing exacerbated parking woes, untenable traffic levels and a fundamentally negative change to neighborhood character, about 150 residents have signed a petition that aims to limit the density of housing on a plot in northeast Boulder where a 44-unit development for low-income families is being considered.

Tonight the city council will vote on whether to annex the open field at 4525 Palo Parkway — it sits in unincorporated Boulder County, barely outside city limits — into the city. They will also hear a concept plan review from the developer, Boulder Housing Partners, though they will only be giving feedback on that aspect.

During the public hearing on the project, though, the council is expected to get an earful from some of the petitioners who claim that Housing Partners, the city's nonprofit housing authority, hasn't taken their concerns seriously.

They argue that parking is already scarce in that area — soccer fields to the west and Calvary Bible Church to the south make it even worse on weekends — and Palo Parkway dead-ending at the proposed project site mean more traffic on a street that's already about a half-mile from any public transportation.

Nine of the proposed 44 housing units would be built by Habitat for Humanity and designed for ownership, as opposed to rentals, but neighbors largely are upset by that as well.

Advertisement

"We would definitely like to see a higher ownership-to-rental ratio, and don't feel that the current ratio is consistent with the neighborhood," Sara Toole said.

Boulder Housing Partners are "not doing what's best for the neighborhood," Toole alleged.

"They're doing what's best for them. And that's why no one likes them — because there's no compromise with them."

Judy Langberg, a homeowner's association board member speaking on behalf of the petitioners, said she believes that Housing Partners has a "game plan" that involves maximizing profits, as opposed to devising an appropriate ratio.

"They're a landlord, you know? That's their business," she said. "It doesn't economically make sense to them, in my opinion, to have more owned units."

Housing Partners Development Project Manager Lauren Schevets said the authority still feels comfortable with nine owned units and 35 rented units, despite outcry from neighbors, who were supported on this point by at least two Boulder Planning Board members.

"We developed this ratio based on what we feel is optimal for this site, based on development capacity of (Housing Partners) and Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, and based on project financing," she said.

City Council member Lisa Morzel said the neighbors have made a "reasonable request" on the topic of ownership.

"I am interested in seeing if there could be more opportunities there. I think (the petitioners) have made a good comment, and I actually think if we could change the balance a little bit, people would not be so opposed to the development," Morzel said.

Working with Housing Partners, Boulder is gradually moving toward its goal of 10 percent "permanently affordable" housing stock. To reach that mark, the city would need 4,800 such units. It's roughly three-quarters of the way there.

An extra 44 units on Palo Parkway would represent a much-needed boost, according to Schevets.

"We have an affordable housing crisis in Boulder right now and our proposed concept plan responds to that crisis," she said.

"Affordable" means a unit is accessible to those earning up to 60 percent of the city's median income. Census data suggests the city's median for a family of four is $100,000, and Boulder Housing Partners has said that the Palo Parkway units would house families that earn between $30,000 and $60,000.

Rent levels would vary depending on an individual tenant or family's income level, Schevets said. A one-bedroom unit, for example, would rent for between $559 and $1,119 per month, while a three-bedroom would rent for between $775 and $1,551.

But many of those who live near or on Palo Parkway are adamant they favor housing for low-income earners. They just claim to want a good fit.

"I don't want to be that NIMBY person," resident Thomas Pennell said. "We love our neighborhood and we're concerned about it changing negatively in ways that might have been avoided if there had been true dialogue."

The Boulder alt-country band gives its EPs names such as Death and Resurrection, and its songs bear the mark of hard truths and sin. But the punk energy behind the playing, and the sense that it's all in good fun, make it OK to dance to a song like "Death." Full Story